[Mr. Lowndes . . .] In the first place, what cause was
there for jealousy of our importing negroes? Why confine
us to twenty years, or rather why limit us at all? For his
part, he thought this trade could be justified on the principles
of religion, humanity, and justice; for certainly to
translate a set of human beings from a bad country to a
better, was fulfilling every part of these principles. But
they don't like our slaves, because they have none themselves,
and therefore want to exclude us from this great
advantage. Why should the Southern States allow of this,
without the consent of nine states?

Judge Pendleton observed, that only three states,
Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, allowed the
importation of negroes. Virginia had a clause in her Constitution
for this purpose, and Maryland, he believed, even
before the war, prohibited them.

Mr. Lowndes continued--that we had a law prohibiting
the importation of negroes for three years, a law he
greatly approved of; but there was no reason offered why
the Southern States might not find it necessary to alter
their conduct, and open their ports. Without negroes, this
state would degenerate into one of the most contemptible
in the Union: and he cited an expression that fell from
General Pinckney on a former debate, that whilst there
remained one acre of swamp-land in South Carolina, he
should raise his voice against restricting the importation of
negroes. Even in granting the importation for twenty
years, care had been taken to make us pay for this indulgence,
each negro being liable, on importation, to pay a
duty not exceeding ten dollars; and, in addition to this,
they were liable to a capitation tax. Negroes were our
wealth, our only natural resource; yet behold how our
kind friends in the north were determined soon to tie up
our hands, and drain us of what we had! The Eastern
States drew their means of subsistence, in a great measure,
from their shipping; and, on that head, they had been
particularly careful not to allow of any burdens: they were
not to pay tonnage or duties; no, not even the form of
clearing out: all ports were free and open to them! Why,
then, call this a reciprocal bargain, which took all from one
party, to bestow it on the other!

Major Butler observed, that they were to pay five per
cent. impost.

This, Mr. Lowndes proved, must fall upon the consumer.
They are to be the carriers; and, we being the consumers,
therefore all expenses would fall upon us. A great
number of gentlemen were captivated with this new Constitution,
because those who were in debt would be compelled
to pay; others pleased themselves with the reflection
that no more confiscation laws would be passed; but those
were small advantages, in proportion to the evils that
might be apprehended from the laws that might be passed
by Congress, whenever there was a majority of representatives
from the Eastern States, who were governed by
prejudices and ideas extremely different from ours.

[17 Jan.]

Gen. C. C. Pinckney: . . . The general then said he
would make a few observations on the objections which the
gentleman had thrown out on the restrictions that might
be laid on the African trade after the year 1808. On this
point your delegates had to contend with the religious and
political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle States, and
with the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia,
who was warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I
am of the same opinion now as I was two years ago, when
I used the expressions the gentleman has quoted--that,
while there remained one acre of swamp-land uncleared
of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against restricting
the importation of negroes. I am as thoroughly convinced
as that gentleman is, that the nature of our climate,
and the flat, swampy situation of our country, obliges us
to cultivate our lands with negroes, and that without them
South Carolina would soon be a desert waste.

You have so frequently heard my sentiments on this
subject, that I need not now repeat them. It was alleged,
by some of the members who opposed an unlimited importation,
that slaves increased the weakness of any state
who admitted them; that they were a dangerous species of
property, which an invading enemy could easily turn
against ourselves and the neighboring states; and that, as
we were allowed a representation for them in the House
of Representatives, our influence in government would be
increased in proportion as we were less able to defend
ourselves. "Show some period," said the members from
the Eastern States, "when it may be in our power to put a
stop, if we please, to the importation of this weakness, and
we will endeavor, for your convenience, to restrain the religious
and political prejudices of our people on this subject."
The Middle States and Virginia made us no such
proposition; they were for an immediate and total prohibition.
We endeavored to obviate the objections that were
made in the best manner we could, and assigned reasons
for our insisting on the importation, which there is no occasion
to repeat, as they must occur to every gentleman in
the house: a committee of the states was appointed in order
to accommodate this matter, and, after a great deal of
difficulty, it was settled on the footing recited in the Constitution.

By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation
of negroes for twenty years. Nor is it declared that
the importation shall be then stopped; it may be continued.
We have a security that the general government can
never emancipate them, for no such authority is granted;
and it is admitted, on all hands, that the general government
has no powers but what are expressly granted by the
Constitution, and that all rights not expressed were reserved
by the several states. We have obtained a right to
recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may
take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short,
considering all circumstances, we have made the best
terms for the security of this species of property it was in
our power to make. We would have made better if we
could; but, on the whole, I do not think them bad.

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. . . . 5 vols. 2d ed. 1888. Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d.